FILTERS
- Age Discrimination
- Disability Discrimination
- Diversity in Employment
- Diversity in the General Counsel’s Office
- Enforcement of Non-Discrimination Laws
- Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)
- Gender Identity & Sexual Orientation Discrimination
- Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA)
- Race and National Origin Discrimination
- Religious Discrimination & Accommodation
- Retaliation
- Sex Discrimination
- Veterans Discrimination
- Academic Freedom & Employee Speech
- Background Checks & Employee Verification
- Collective Bargaining
- Diversity in Employment
- Employee Benefits
- Employee Discipline & Due Process
- Employee Sexual Misconduct
- Employment of Foreign Nationals
- Employment Separation, RIFs, ERIPs & Retrenchment
- Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) & Categorization of Employees
- Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)
- Intellectual Property
- Reproductive Health Issues
- Research
- Retaliation
- Tenure
- Veterans & Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA)
- Diversity in the General Counsel’s Office
- Ethical Obligations of Higher Education Lawyers
- Evaluation of Operations & Staff in the General Counsel’s Office
- External Counsel
- Law Office Management
- Law Office Technology
- Law Office Training
- Roles & Responsibilities of the General Counsel
- Wellness & Stress Management
- Academic Performance and Misconduct
- Admissions
- Distressed & Suicidal Students
- Financial Aid, Scholarships, & Student Loans
- Hazing
- Internships, Externships, & Clinical Work
- Student Athlete Issues
- Student Conduct
- Student Housing
- Student Organizations
- Student Speech & Campus Unrest
- Title IX & Student Sexual Misconduct
- Uncategorized
Latest Cases & Developments
Date:
Peace v. Carter (S.D. Oh. Dec. 30, 2025)
Opinion and Order Granting in Part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a former student at Ohio State University, sued the president of the university and several university police officers asserting claims for false arrest and malicious prosecution under Ohio law and the Fourth Amendment, First Amendment retaliatory arrest, and a First Amendment claim challenging the University Space Rules (USR), after he was arrested on campus for criminal trespass while filming during a protest. The court dismissed the majority of plaintiff’s claims including (1) any claims to the extent they sought injunctive or declaratory relief, holding plaintiff failed to allege an ongoing or threat of future injury sufficient for Article III standing; (2) claims against the defendants in their official capacities; (3) state law claims for false arrest and malicious prosecution against defendants, holding the court lacked jurisdiction; and (4) § 1983 claims against the university president in his individual capacity, holding he lacked the requisite personal involvement in the alleged unconstitutional conduct necessary to be held liable. However, the court denied the motion to dismiss with respect to three claims against three university police officers, including plaintiff’s as-applied First Amendment challenge to the USR, noting, in part, that defendants provided no basis to find that plaintiff’s filming of the university police did not enjoy First Amendment protection.
Topics:
Campus Police & Relationships with Local Law Enforcement | Campus Police, Safety, & Crisis Management | Constitutional Issues | Fourth Amendment & Search and Seizure | Student Speech & Campus UnrestDate:
Leichty v. Bethel Coll., et al. (10th Cir. Apr. 20, 2023)
Order and Judgment affirming-in-part and reversing-in-part summary judgment in favor of the College and remanding. Plaintiff, a member of the public who was known to conference organizers for attending conferences to promote his own views and events, brought contract and false arrest claims against Bethel College and the local police department after he was expelled from a conference hosted by the College on “Mennonites and the Holocaust” and arrested for trespass when he returned the following day. The Tenth Circuit reversed summary judgment in favor of the College on plaintiff’s contract claim, holding that (1) his payment of the $100 registration fee gave him an irrevocable license to attend the conference and (2) a jury could find that plaintiff’s continuing to pass out fliers after he was told not to and his continuing to speak after his microphone was cut did not constitute material breaches of his duty of good faith and fair dealing. In affirming summary judgment in favor of the College on his false arrest claim, however, the court held that even though he had been invited to return to campus for lunch after he was expelled from the conference, he had not been invited to return to the conference itself. Accordingly, there was sufficient cause for his arrest for trespassing when he attempted to reenter the conference.
Topics:
Campus Police & Relationships with Local Law Enforcement | Campus Police, Safety, & Crisis Management | Constitutional Issues | Contracts | First Amendment & Free Speech
NACUA Annual Conference
Join us in the Music City June 29 – July 2 to connect, learn, and lead alongside higher education attorneys shaping policy, practice, and impact nationwide together.